I have an old laptop with Win10 that runs slow, would Linux be better?


Recommended Posts

On 27/08/2022 at 17:58, ThaCrip said:

 

Linux Mint v21.0-Xfce (which I prefer over Cinnamon, slow hardware or not) will almost certainly be better than that as that's too long and you got a respectable CPU to.

 

even my old AMD Athlon X2 3600+ CPU (dual core from basically late 2000's) with a 250GB HDD and 4GB of RAM (the RAM cannot be upgraded any further as the ASUS board is at it's limit) boots up and is usable well faster than 3-5 minutes on Mint 21.0-Xfce. I did not time it, but starting from when the OS loads I can't imagine it's more than roughly 2 minutes tops off the top of my head to get the computer in a usable state.

 

but honestly, if you use that fairly often a SSD would be worth getting since the boot up times will drop significantly (and load times of programs will drop significantly, especially when you are trying to load multiple programs at the same time). still, even a regular hard drive should not take 3-5min to finish booting and getting to a usable state.

 

even on a laptop I got with a CLEARLY underpowered CPU (and 8GB of RAM and currently has a 128GB SSD in it)... Linux Mint clearly runs better than Windows 10 does overall. sure, the CPU is still slow either way, but since it does not have many CPU cycles to spare in general, you don't have all of that background junk on Mint that Windows 10 does using up a already low amount of CPU resources which I think is ultimately why Mint runs better than Win10 on that laptop. so Mint runs smoother and becomes usable quicker when booting up. plus, it seems with updates in general they install faster on Mint than Windows which is probably a much bigger deal when you already got a well underpowered CPU.

 

granted, the OP's CPU is still plenty good enough either way with Mint or Win10. but assuming the OP is staying on Win10, a SSD is the bottom line answer to give his overall system a solid performance boost.

 

 

 

That's typical behavior on a regular HDD. because if you are only loading one thing at a time, it's not too bad, but if you try to load more than one thing at a time, and each of those things require decent hard drive activity, the system will slow to a crawl temporarily.

 

even on Mint on my old 250GB HDD etc. after boot up if I load the browser, it take a bit for the browser to initially load which is not bad and expected. but say after a fresh boot up I ran system updates to Mint and there is decent hard drive activity of installing those updates and then I try loading the browser from scratch, while the updates are using the hard drive decently, it will slow to a crawl temporarily.

 

but the obvious fix in these cases, which I am sure everyone already mentioned, is to get a SSD as that will make a significant difference in these cases.

So I ran a boot timer at it said 180 seconds. I disabled the 10 second delay before explorer loads everything, so that should lower the time slightly, and I defragged the HDD, which appears to have never been done. I am also very much aware that the HDD is on it's way to the graveyard, but I only need it to work for another 2 weeks or so until I can buy a new CPU for my desktop

On 28/08/2022 at 00:58, jnelsoninjax said:

So I ran a boot timer at it said 180 seconds. I disabled the 10 second delay before explorer loads everything, so that should lower the time slightly, and I defragged the HDD, which appears to have never been done. I am also very much aware that the HDD is on it's way to the graveyard, but I only need it to work for another 2 weeks or so until I can buy a new CPU for my desktop

Ah, so this is a backup machine for when your desktop is not working correctly? It's not a primary machine?

 

In that case I wouldn't bother touching it. It will be slow and clunky, but you only need it for a short period of time every so often.

 

If you are looking to upgrade it though, I agree with upgrading the RAM to 8GB (you should have 2 slots for 4GB each?) but the main idea should be replacing the HDD for an SSD.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
On 27/08/2022 at 18:49, Nick H. said:

If you are looking to upgrade it though, I agree with upgrading the RAM to 8GB (you should have 2 slots for 4GB each?) but the main idea should be replacing the HDD for an SSD.

ya doing that, I think it would run very respectable. Friends don't let friends use "Sh** Spinners"

I'll echo the other comments here:  an SSD is a great way to extend the life of an old laptop.  It'll run like a dream!

On 27/08/2022 at 20:38, warwagon said:

ya doing that, I think it would run very respectable. Friends don't let friends use "Sh** Spinners"

It has 8GB already

On 27/08/2022 at 20:18, jnelsoninjax said:

It has 8GB already

Perfect. Then add an SSD.. it's a no brainer. Haven't used an HDD as a boot drive for the last 10 years.

On 27/08/2022 at 21:31, warwagon said:

Perfect. Then add an SSD.. it's a no brainer. Haven't used an HDD as a boot drive for the last 10 years.

I will, for $50 to boost the speed is a no brainer as you said

I think Nick H summed it up.

 

unless a laptop's 2nd gen i5 is a lot worse than a desktops, that should be far from slow (like closer to fast than slow in the big scheme of things for general day-to-day use) as on my primary desktop I got a i5-3550 (I used to have a i3-2120 not long ago (as I upgraded in 2020) before I swapped out CPU for the i5-3550) and it's still plenty fast enough for many uses, as while I know you said your setup is only got 4GB of RAM, I suspect just adding a SSD will help off-set the lack of RAM to some degree.

 

but I see you mentioned 8GB of RAM (which I am assuming this is your primary setup(?)) as I figure as long as someone has at least 8GB of RAM it should still be easily good enough for many uses, even moderate to somewhat heavy use, especially if paired with a SSD. hell, even before I upgraded from 8GB of RAM to 16GB of RAM on my primary PC 2 years ago, 8GB of RAM was still easily good enough for general usage on my SSD setup. even when I upgraded, I can't say I notice any obvious differences in general day-to-day usage, even though there are some tasks I occasionally do that can push RAM use a bit higher to where I probably get some level of benefit with the RAM upgrade (still, I figure at the very least by the time 16GB of RAM becomes a real problem, my system will probably be quite ancient by that point).

 

so I think I can confidently say that unless a person is a fairly heavy user (with fairly major RAM hog programs), the biggest all-around boost in terms of RAM upgrade will come from 4GB to 8GB more than 8GB to 16GB etc, especially if they got a SSD.

 

hell, I am sure even my i3-2120 (dual core), if I was still using it, is still good enough for general use to this day, especially if you got sufficient RAM (say 8GB) and a SSD. but I had a theory that even 4GB of RAM might not be too bad if paired with a SSD as it might help off-set the lack of RAM. but I never got around to testing this yet (but if my main PC dies, ill know soon enough since ill be immediately putting in a SSD into my old desktop computer which has a dual core CPU from the late 2000's and is limited to only 4GB of RAM).

 

p.s. but come to think of it... has anyone around here tried what I suspect might be true above? (i.e. running a decent CPU paired with only 4GB of RAM on a decent SATA SSD in that does it largely offset the performance hit from lack of RAM or not for general day-to-day use?)

  • 1 month later...

Linux is faster indeed, although it all depends on the filling details. I have a problem when rebooting Linux, the black screen is on and does not turn on, only when the power is turned off can it be turned on again. How to deal with this problem?

On 30/09/2022 at 12:11, pololy07 said:

Linux is faster indeed, although it all depends on the filling details. I have a problem when rebooting Linux, the black screen is on and does not turn on, only when the power is turned off can it be turned on again. How to deal with this problem?

This might help.

 

https://askubuntu.com/questions/162075/my-computer-boots-to-a-black-screen-what-options-do-i-have-to-fix-it

  • Thanks 1
  • 1 year later...

You can try (all) the easy Unix-like systems.

Easy difficulty
PCLinuxOS -- https://pclosusers.com/communityiso/LXQt/community-pclinuxos64-lxqt-2023.11.iso
ROSA Fresh Desktop -- https://mirror.rosalinux.ru/rosa/rosa2021.1/iso/ROSA.FRESH.12/lxqt/ROSA.FRESH.LXQT.12.4.x86_64.uefi.iso
mageia -- https://www.mageia.org/fr/downloads/
OpenMandriva -- https://www.openmandriva.org
GhostBSD -- https://www.ghostbsd.org
Clear Linux -- https://www.clearlinux.org/downloads.html
Mint -- https://linuxmint.com/download.php
EndeavourOS -- https://endeavouros.com
ALT Linux -- http://nightly.altlinux.org/sisyphus/tested/regular-lxqt-latest-x86_64.iso
nobara -- https://nobaraproject.org

When you have more experience or more skills you will be able to use more dificult systems as well.

Intermediate difficulty
DragonFly BSD -- https://www.dragonflybsd.org/
Void Linux -- https://repo-default.voidlinux.org/live/current/void-live-x86_64-20230628-xfce.iso
Alpine Linux -- https://www.alpinelinux.org/
OpenBSD -- https://www.openbsd.org
Artix Linux -- https://artixlinux.org/download.php
Devuan -- https://devuan.org

In terms of memory management (RAM usage), Alpine Linux and DragonFly BSD tend to be 'stronger' than most operating systems, but they also have a slightly more difficult learning curve at the beginning.

  • Facepalm 1

As others said, if possible, switch from HDD to SSD and upgrade to 8GB or 16GB RAM...

If you are okay with the current amount of RAM, you will be limited to 32bit versions since 64bit versions consume more memory...

Since it's already more than a year since then, I wonder what the OP did with the machine...

On 14/12/2023 at 09:58, aioraito said:

As others said, if possible, switch from HDD to SSD and upgrade to 8GB or 16GB RAM...

If you are okay with the current amount of RAM, you will be limited to 32bit versions since 64bit versions consume more memory...

Since it's already more than a year since then, I wonder what the OP did with the machine...

As everyone has said the SSD upgrade should be done and according to the OP it was done.  Upgrading to 16GB of RAM for a machine with a 2 core (4 thread) CPU doesn't make much sense to me. You are not limited to a 32-bit OS with 8GB of RAM in anyway. What are you talking about?  16GB of RAM has only become standard on NEW non-entry level computers in like the last year.

On 14/12/2023 at 08:38, FateTrap said:

You can try (all) the easy Unix-like systems.

Easy difficulty
PCLinuxOS -- https://pclosusers.com/communityiso/LXQt/community-pclinuxos64-lxqt-2023.11.iso
ROSA Fresh Desktop -- https://mirror.rosalinux.ru/rosa/rosa2021.1/iso/ROSA.FRESH.12/lxqt/ROSA.FRESH.LXQT.12.4.x86_64.uefi.iso
mageia -- https://www.mageia.org/fr/downloads/
OpenMandriva -- https://www.openmandriva.org
GhostBSD -- https://www.ghostbsd.org
Clear Linux -- https://www.clearlinux.org/downloads.html
Mint -- https://linuxmint.com/download.php
EndeavourOS -- https://endeavouros.com
ALT Linux -- http://nightly.altlinux.org/sisyphus/tested/regular-lxqt-latest-x86_64.iso
nobara -- https://nobaraproject.org

When you have more experience or more skills you will be able to use more dificult systems as well.

Intermediate difficulty
DragonFly BSD -- https://www.dragonflybsd.org/
Void Linux -- https://repo-default.voidlinux.org/live/current/void-live-x86_64-20230628-xfce.iso
Alpine Linux -- https://www.alpinelinux.org/
OpenBSD -- https://www.openbsd.org
Artix Linux -- https://artixlinux.org/download.php
Devuan -- https://devuan.org

In terms of memory management (RAM usage), Alpine Linux and DragonFly BSD tend to be 'stronger' than most operating systems, but they also have a slightly more difficult learning curve at the beginning.

Those are easy? Man, you must have a wild imagination.

I had so many issues with EndeavourOS. Just one thing popping after another. And being on Arch, it isn't easy peasy.

Nobara? That's on a whole new level. Not for a beginner.

Edit: ANY distro can be light weight depending on what DE they use/allow, as well as all the software they install OOTB.

  • Like 1
On 14/12/2023 at 13:18, Mindovermaster said:

Those are easy? Man, you must have a wild imagination.

I had so many issues with EndeavourOS. Just one thing popping after another. And being on Arch, it isn't easy peasy.

Nobara? That's on a whole new level. Not for a beginner.

Edit: ANY distro can be light weight depending on what DE they use/allow, as well as all the software they install OOTB.

You see suggestions like this all the time on the Linux subreddits when someone posts they have never used Linux before and ask for suggestions. A lot people won't even suggest a DE that is similar to Windows (like KDE or Cinnamon) and instead go to GNOME or even just a Window Manager. I think a lot of people just recommend things they prefer and for their use cases while ignoring the person asking experience and use case. It's kinda a form of gatekeeping IMO. The best were the BSD distros mentioned when the OP wanted to use Linux.

The other guy saying the OP would be limited to a 32-bit OS with 8GB of RAM was also bizarre. Both comments were very weird especially on a post that was from over two years ago. Like why?

Edited by Good Bot, Bad Bot
On 14/12/2023 at 13:29, Good Bot, Bad Bot said:

You see suggestions like this all the time on the Linux subreddits when someone posts they have never used Linux before and ask for suggestions. A lot people won't even suggest a DE that is similar to Windows (like KDE or Cinnamon) and instead go to GNOME or even just a Window Manager. I think a lot of people just recommend things they prefer and for their use cases while ignoring the person asking experience and use case. It's kinda a form of gatekeeping IMO. The best were the BSD distros mentioned when the OP wanted to use Linux.

The other guy saying the OP would be limited to a 32-bit OS with 8GB of RAM was also bizarre. Both comments were very weird especially on a post that was from over two years ago. Like why?

Cinnamon is based on GNOME, so don't wash it out.

I was not telling the OP that, see who I quoted? He probably picked those distros from DistroWatch..

And BSD is good, but not somewhere you want to start at..

Everyone has an opinion and I gave mine. If you can't accept that, leave.

 

On 14/12/2023 at 14:56, Mindovermaster said:

Cinnamon is based on GNOME, so don't wash it out.

I was not telling the OP that, see who I quoted? He probably picked those distros from DistroWatch..

And BSD is good, but not somewhere you want to start at..

Everyone has an opinion and I gave mine. If you can't accept that, leave.

 

Cinnamon is based on GNOME but unlike GNOME it is a very similar to the Windows desktop layout and workflow so it would be familiar for a new Linux user.

Ummmm I didn't say you told the OP anything. It wasn't obvious I was referring to FateTrap (and others like them on Reddit) who you quoted?

I was actually agreeing with you and even if didn't I wouldn't need to or would leave. Chill man...

On 14/12/2023 at 14:46, Good Bot, Bad Bot said:

I was actually agreeing with you and even if didn't I wouldn't need to or would leave. Chill man...

Didn't sound like an agreement, but.. O well.

On 14/12/2023 at 20:18, Mindovermaster said:

Didn't sound like an agreement, but.. O well.

You made a remark about those distros not being "easy" to the person in question and I replied to you that a lot of people make poor suggestions to Linux beginners. What other agreement were you looking for? LOL

On 14/12/2023 at 19:30, Good Bot, Bad Bot said:

You made a remark about those distros not being "easy" to the person in question and I replied to you that a lot of people make poor suggestions to Linux beginners. What other agreement were you looking for? LOL

:rolleyes:

On 15/12/2023 at 01:39, Good Bot, Bad Bot said:

As everyone has said the SSD upgrade should be done and according to the OP it was done.  Upgrading to 16GB of RAM for a machine with a 2 core (4 thread) CPU doesn't make much sense to me. You are not limited to a 32-bit OS with 8GB of RAM in anyway. What are you talking about?  16GB of RAM has only become standard on NEW non-entry level computers in like the last year.

I may not have conveyed it the way I intended, or it was misunderstood...

What I'm trying to say is 32bit OS can only use up to 4GB RAM [as what I have seen using Windows XP 32bit on a computer with 8GB RAM] while a 64bit OS can easily eat up all the 4GB RAM which is why I also recommended to upgrade to 8GB or 16GB RAM... I also have 2core 4thread computer and it is fine running 64bit LMDE with 16GB RAM and a SSD...

  • Like 1
On 14/12/2023 at 21:24, aioraito said:

What I'm trying to say is 32bit OS can only use up to 4GB RAM [as what I have seen using Windows XP 32bit on a computer with 8GB RAM] while a 64bit OS can easily eat up all the 4GB RAM which is why I also recommended to upgrade to 8GB or 16GB RAM... I also have 2core 4thread computer and it is fine running 64bit LMDE with 16GB RAM and a SSD...

Good point..

On 14/12/2023 at 20:36, Mindovermaster said:

:rolleyes:

We can only all guess why the eyeroll... is it really that hard to just say you misunderstood what I said?

Edited by Good Bot, Bad Bot
On 14/12/2023 at 22:24, aioraito said:

I may not have conveyed it the way I intended, or it was misunderstood...

What I'm trying to say is 32bit OS can only use up to 4GB RAM [as what I have seen using Windows XP 32bit on a computer with 8GB RAM] while a 64bit OS can easily eat up all the 4GB RAM which is why I also recommended to upgrade to 8GB or 16GB RAM... I also have 2core 4thread computer and it is fine running 64bit LMDE with 16GB RAM and a SSD...

That's why it's always a good idea to read the previous comments as the OP had said he upgraded to 8GB.  I didn't say the laptop wouldn't run with 16GB of RAM but there is a diminishing returns with a CPU that old. The laptop will run great with 8GB of RAM and a SSD with Linux for a secondary system.  He would be better off putting that money toward a newer laptop.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Spotify really have turned in to a butthole of a company. Assuming this isn't a bug then this is a low act for Premium users. Honestly, YT Premium which includes YT Music is a genuine alternative. In any event, the internet enshitification continues unabated...next up, the banning of VPN's.
    • This is why science is the only path to truth. It isn't rigid in its beliefs, rather it changes its views based on scientific discoveries.
    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "What an interesting smell you've discovered"
    • It could EASILY be 70 for the base game BUT + lots of FOMO to make it up to 100-120, like a few days Early Access, online money, pre-order bonus cars, weapons, missions, clothing, avatars or profile stuff, etc... And still WAY TOO MANY people would buy those and make Rockstar insane money.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      164
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      92
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      76
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!